From Pakistan’s perspective, perhaps the most significant development is the lack of respect for the country in the western world. Several surveys carried out by western think tanks and agencies rate the country as one of the least liked in the world. The BBC, for instance, surveyed more than 26,000 people around the world to rate their perception of 16 countries and found that Pakistan was seen positively by only 15 per cent of the respondents. Such a low opinion in democracies influences the making of public policy. Pakistan is now in a difficult world in which it has lost respect.
It was a relatively simple world the last time Prime Minister Sharif was in power. It was dominated by one superpower, the United States. Bill Clinton, America’s supremely confident president, governed an equally supremely confident nation. The Soviet Union had collapsed eight years earlier under the weight of its unworkable economic system. In the final year of Nawaz’s second tenure as prime minister, President Clinton had used his enormous influence to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan. The two countries were about to go to war over the failed Kargil adventure undertaken by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. India had responded with resolve and firmness the general had not expected. The two countries were close to an all-out war when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif requested President Clinton for help. The American president, sensing the danger in an open conflict between two nations armed with nuclear weapons, worked out a solution that saved Pakistan’s face while Islamabad accepted all the demands made by India. These included total withdrawal from Kargil.
In 1999, Afghanistan seemed more settled than it had been for more than a decade. The Taliban, having overcome the resistance offered to their advance by all but one warlord that had fought the Soviet Union in 1979-89, had brought peace to the country. They ruled the Afghan nation with an iron hand, imposing on it what they believed to be the Islamic way of governance. The regime was recognised by three Muslim countries — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — but was shunned by the rest of the world.
Fourteen years later, in 2013, the third-time prime minister looks at a very different world. Since 1999, the confidence with which Washington dealt with the world is mostly gone. A deep recession in 2007-09 and disagreement in the country about the role of the state have affected the American mood and increased the citizenry’s worry about its future. Since 1999, the United States has been involved in two long wars, both in the Muslim world. It pulled out of Iraq in 2012 and is getting ready to leave Afghanistan. In both countries, a lot of blood was shed and trillions of dollars were spent but what will be left is chaos. These two wars have drained energy out of America and left it weak. Across the Atlantic, the European Union is faced with the deepest economic crisis since its creation. And Japan has been in throes of a recession that has proven to be exceptionally stubborn. As opposed to the old industrial nations, several Asian countries continue to see their economies expand.
China now poses a serious challenge to America’s domination. The most important change from Pakistan’s perspective is the rise of China. It now has the second largest economy in the world, having passed Japan in 2010. It has become the world’s leading exporter; it also surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest trading nation in 2012. India has seen its economy grow at a rate almost three times the average for Pakistan in the last 14 years. Islamabad can no longer look at New Delhi as a near-equal. India has a much larger economy and much stronger military than was the case in 1999. The Muslim world has also changed significantly since the last time Nawaz Sharif occupied the prime minister’s office. The Arab spring of 2011 has felled three long-enduring regimes that had been in power for more than 127 years combined. Regimes changed in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen as a result of the pressure exerted by the Arab street. There is civil war in the fourth Arab state, Syria. The continuing conflict in Syria threatens to pit the Sunni states against those in which the Shias are in majority. Pakistan, with the world’s second largest Shia population, will have to worry about the possibility of this development.
While Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has said that solving the country’s energy crisis must be his top priority, he cannot ignore the world outside his country’s borders. He must understand the shape the world has taken since the last time he held the reins of power and also the change that is likely to occur in the future.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 10th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
You CANNOT teach an old dog new tricks. Also the biggest change not mentioned here is the fact that Privacy does not exist anymore. Everything is recorded, taped, youtubed, facebooked, or twittered. You can't make things disappear like you used to...
ET Mods: 2 people have written to me and I am responding. Pls. allow.
@Sahar Khan: IT is not the fact that advice isoffered to Nawaz that I am questioning. It is the tone of the advice that implies that Nawaz has no idea that the world has changed in the past 14 years. I thus described the post as condescending not inappropriate - there is a difference.
@BlackJack: Your second post contrdicts your first one. The first one seems to imply that you disagree because unlike me you do not believe the article was directed to Nawaz at all. When I provided support for my logic that it was indeed directed to Nawaz, you now say that the basis of disagreement is that everyone can do with advice. Of course they can. To offer a point of view/suggestion s of what should happen is one thing and this is what one expects from OpEds. To give an opinion with the assumption that the recipient (who is the PM) is clueless and out of touch is quite another. It is a latter that I have pointed out.
"The world changed while the PM was out of power" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 14 years ago the PM was behind bars and now the commando. The world has indeed changed!
@gp65: Extremely out of the way comment. He has only mentioned, what NS should know and focus his work towards. If NS is going to be all in all of everything and knows everything. There is no need of "Wazeers" then by him to assist him in his decsion-making. Everybody there even is going to hand out a piece of advice to him.
@gp65: Agreed to disagree, because by that logic all articles that contains suggestions on foreign policy (clearly suggestions are for the government while the audience is the reader) should be avoided, since it is presumptuous to assume that anyone in Govt hears this advice/ analysis for the first time while reading the op-ed.
"the lack of respect for the country in the western world" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Present a Pakistani Passport at a Western Embassy and the reaction conveys the standing of the Pakistani Nation!.
ET Mods: Pls. allow response to someone who has written to me.
@BlackJack: "@gp65: I disagree. This is not a letter written to the PM – it is an op-ed in a newspaper, and is clearly meant for readers"
Well I must respectfully agree to disagree then. If this was directed only to the readers (all OpEds are always meant for the readers but some like this one are also directed to other audiences) and not meant as advice to Nawaz Sharif, what is the relevance to the fact that it has been 14 years since Nawaz Sharif was last in power?
Secondly how do you interpret this statement "He must understand the shape the world has taken since the last time he held the reins of power and also the change that is likely to occur in the future". IF this is not directed to Nawaz Shrif, exactly who is the 'he' stated in this terminal statement in the OpEd?
@gp65: I disagree. This is not a letter written to the PM - it is an op-ed in a newspaper, and is clearly meant for readers, many of whom will find it worth their time. Half the problems of Pakistan are due to delusions of grandeur, so a reality check is never out of place.
One thing you have failed to mention is that 9/11 changed the tolerance for terrorism anywhere. The policy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts is now well past it's expiry date.
One small correction. During Kargil Indian PM, AB Vajpayee had publicly declared that India was not interested in an inch of Pakistan territory. The fighting was going to be over as soon as the occupied area was taken back. Therefore there was no possibility of an all-out-war.
it'd be pertinent to mention US's "pivot" to Asia in lock-step with the strategic alliance of the so-called 'arc of democracies' - Japan, India, Australia and Singapore. Where will Pakistan stand - with it's all weather friend, or with the US - led alliance of democracies?
Nawaz may not have been a PM for the past 14 years but his party was the leading opposition party federally and was in power in Punjab which is the largest state. If you, who also were not the PM ae aware of these facts, what makes you think that Nawaz would not be aware? OpEd seems a little arrogant and condescending.
So what if the West does not respect us. As you said China is the rising superpower. China could invest in our energy sector and turn it round. The Chinese have the guts that the West to invest in China. They can also buy our natural resources which they need very much. We can also buy everything from them and it is super cheap. Chinese are good at contructiuon, textiles, oil, energy, and mobile phones. So they can invest in our nationalized industries and turn them around. We do not need the respect of the West it is China which is the new superpower.
An excellent analysis of global geopolitical analysis and reality. The author's advice to the elected leaders to accept the global changes, and formulate policies that do not make Pakistan punch above its weight class, is based on sound wisdom.
So the crux is that Pakistan being having the second largest Shia population after Iran have to strike a balance in relationship with Saudi Arabia & their rival Iran.Unfortunately both the oil rich countries are funding two fiercely rival groups in Pakistan i.e Shias & Wahhabi Sunnis,hence law & order situation in Pakistan.Ironically both the aforementioned countries are fighting their proxy war in Pakistan & watching sitting peacefully.How to strike a balance,that's the question?Rest,the economy of Pakistan requires,as one suggested earlier in these columns,a collective effort by a group of economists of Pakistan to ponder over & come forward with solutions as how to come out of it.So far as the Finance Minister is concerned, he himself knowing that a solo effort will not help,should form such a group & start working in this direction without loss of time.
A very perceptive article.
You are right Mr. Burki the world is a very different place than it was in 1999. I think Nawaz Sharif is also a very different person than he was in 1999. I don't think the what essentially drives and motivates NS has changed. He is driven to make his mark on the country/history. A challenge for an essentially shy and introverted personality.
However, this might have been his strength too. Fourteen years of prison, exile, opposition has lead to introspection and reflection and has taught him that the means to his leaving his mark on the country goes through bringing along a substantial section of the population with him, that he secures support from all provinces, that he has all major institutions with him or at least not against him.
He has proven to be a much better politician since 2007 than he was in 1999 in this respect. Fundamentally he now knows that it si from the democratic system that he derives his power and undermining it would essentially undermine his own access to power.
Learning can be a slow and difficult process but invaluable and may help in fostering a new tomorrow for the country.